|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Aug 14, 2017 7:44:15 GMT -6
I saw one of those online “question-of-the-day” polls this past week; the question was simple: “If we once again feed North Korea’s people, will North Korea’s government behave or continue its belligerence?”
This is a question 1st world nations have faced time and again particularly in dealing with 2nd and 3rd world countries whose citizens suffer under the onus of failed Marxist/Socialist regimes. In the past we’ve seen it in Cuba and even the former Soviet Union. We are seeing it today in Venezuela which used to be a wealthy, prosperous free market beacon for all of South America and which is now circling the drain of total collapse thanks to yet one more enlightened authoritarian experiment in centralized socialist wealth redistribution. North Korea has been a continuing hell hole for its hapless people going on 70 years. What can we in the U.S. do about it?
There are two basic approaches we can take. We can soften the suffering by throwing some food at them. However, that’s not been terribly productive in the past when we’ve tossed humanitarian goodies to afflicted citizens in countries with virulently anti-American governments. This has always tended to be a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Lets Kumbaya crowd go to bed with smiles on their lips. Not that I’m against do-gooding, per se. We all indulge in it when we think the cause is righteous.
The more effective long-term solution is to eliminate the suffering at its source. That’s a lot tougher than sending out shiploads of grain because it requires a commitment to action that may come with serious cost. In the case of North Korea the source of the suffering is Kim Jong Un and his oppressive 3rd generation Stalinist regime. So, if the U.S. is truly wanting to help the people of North Korea (cough) well, I guess I don’t have to spell it out for you.
The only question remaining is how far do we want to go to lance this communist carbuncle of the Far East? That is a question that may be answered in the not-too-distant future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Aug 16, 2017 16:45:58 GMT -6
I had two favorite subjects in high school. One was history; the other was English Lit. As for the history I had U.S. history and world history. I enjoyed those classes equally. I still love history but I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a “student of history” since that would imply a certain dedication to scholarship I simply don’t possess. Still, I sometimes wonder at how history might have been different if, knowing then what we know now, we would have the chance to avoid horrendous mistakes of the past? I wonder if things might have been different in the early 30s when members of the Sturmabteilung (“Stormtroopers” in English), the para-military wing of the National Socialist Workers Party (commonly known as Nazis) were running around Germany burning books, smashing store windows and generally engaging in organized havoc in the streets. And if those responsible for maintaining civil order had stood up and said, “That’s enough! It stops now!” and then had gone out and stopped it, by whatever means necessary, might history have turned out, at least, a little differently? I think about this when I look at what’s going on in America today, in Charlottesville, Virginia, and in Baltimore, and Portland, Oregon, and dozens of communities around the country stretching back to the rioting in Ferguson, Missouri. I think of masked rioters showing up in the streets to loot, and burn, and beat down anyone standing in their way. No, not talking about the Stormtroopers of old, I’m talking about today’s purveyors of organized destruction by whatever name they choose to go by. Here’s a rhetorical question. What’s the difference between the Nazi Stormtroopers of infamy and the masked, armed Antifas rioters of modern day America? OK, I lied. It’s not really only rhetorical. There is a difference. The two are distinguishable one from other. Members of the Sturmabteilung wore brown shirts as their “uniform” and those of Antifas wear black shirts. That’s it. Oh, I know, we can’t forget that the Stormtroops had the approval and encouragement of Germany’s Nazi Party. But then again, Antifas has the approval and encouragement of the Democratic Party. Hmmm. makes you wonder if there is really much difference between the Nazis and the De – (cough) well, I suppose we should move along. I’m happy to see the president reminding everyone that both sides in the violent confrontations in Charlottesville were equally to blame and that both sides should be condemned, equally. It would be nice if cowardly Republicans would speak up in support of the president, assuming they can get the nerve to defy the Joseph Goebbels Commemorative National News Media. The National Socialist Party was out to fundamentally change Germany in the 1930s. How did that work out? Fundamentally change? Where have I heard that phrase before? I fear George Santayana is right. Those who do not remember the past…  How is was back then
 How it is today
|
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Aug 22, 2017 13:08:19 GMT -6
Did You Really Mean That Oath?
 This is an open letter to all our federal elected officials. You remember when you first took the oath of office? You remember how you stood in the Senate or the House and raised your right hand in the air: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." You remember saying those words? Swearing that oath? Did you mean it? Did you actually think about what you were saying? Or was it just one more bit of mumbo-jumbo, just some more traditional fol-do-roll you had to perform before you could be assigned your seat in Congress? And you didn't really have to mean it, right? I mean, you could have pulled a Colin Kaepernick and taken a knee during the oath of office, right? Or did you think that "and domestic" was just a bit of a catch-all phase only to make sure the bases were covered? Do you not think we have any "domestic enemies" of the Constitution? Let me educate you. We've have "enemies of the U.S. Constitution" operating in this country for over 100 years, probably more. But around the turn of the last century, and borrowing from European tradition our "domestic enemies" began calling themselves "Progressives" and they've worked tirelessly to see our Constitution dumped in favor of something, well, more controllable. Naturally you don't just toss a Constitution out with yesterday's trash, at least not while paying lip service to it at the same time. No, you have to do it bit at a time. And you have to make sure everyone understands you're doing it for "the common man" or better yet, doing it "for the children." Oh yeah, the children. That's good. What decent, honorable citizens could possibly be against doing something "for the children?" Today we are seeing a dramatic uptick in the war against our republic. We've gone from subtle and not-so-subtle attacks upon the Bill of Rights, most notably the 1st and 2nd Amendments, to open attacks on our history and civil society. Destruction of statues, rewriting of history, and the shouting down of those who stand in the way are just tactics in this war. Let me ask, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks were doing the very same erasing and rewriting of history in Russia in 1917 what was their intent? What was the intent of Hitler and the Nazis when they were doing it? Mao Zedong in China? Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Castro in Cuba? Radical Muslim fundamentalists, today, all over the Middle East and North Africa? And now, Antifas, Black Lives Matter and their fellow travelers in the United States of America? What? You getting a little squeamish now? OMG! You mean? You mean? YES, I do mean it! All you have to is apply the "duck rule" referred to periodically in the Arkansas Legislature regarding ones ability to recognize a new tax when one sees it: "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck – IT'S A DUCK!" So applied to our latter day malcontents in street, who do they talk like? Who do they act like? In short, who and what are they? And now to our Congressional representation, did you really mean that oath? Or was it just words repeated in order to get a desk in Congress? |
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Aug 28, 2017 12:27:18 GMT -6
Doing What is Right for the Right Reasons
Let me say right up front Donald Trump was not my first choice during the Republican primaries last year. He was probably 3rd or 4th on my list of top candidates. But he got the nomination and rather than sit back and do nothing to stand in the way of the Princess of Evil I voted for Trump in the general election. Since he has been president I haven't agreed with all this decisions. Some them are just plain wrong. But he often does things that deserve some commendation. And one such item of business was his recent pardon of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I shall ignore all the left-wing blather that surrounds most political issues, the playing of the race card and civil rights card and discrimination card and all the other "cards" the left resorts to when they don't have any valid arguments to offer. Instead let's get to the point: The underlying crime for which Joe Arpaio was convicted in Arizona was that of enforcing the law. Keeping in mind that illegal immigration violates federal law, and keeping in mind all of the United States is subject to federal law, the sheriff exercised his authority as a law enforcement to enforce the law and worked to bring the existence of illegals in Maricopa County to the attention of federal authorities. You want look it all up go ahead. I'm doing to do your homework for you. What I will say is I was glad President Trump had the gumption to do what George W. Bush lacked the cojones to do. Trump gave Arpaio a pardon. It was well deserved and timely. You may recall George W. Bush allowed "Scooter Libby" to go to prison rather than pardon him. And Libby's underlying crime? Misstating to the FBI what happened at a luncheon a couple of years before. That's a process crime. Martha Stewart went to prison for a similar "crime." That's what Democrats are hoping for in the endless investigations of Donald Trump. But back to Joe Arpaio, this pardon could end up leading to an interesting situation in next year's Senatorial race in Arizona: I can think of plenty of Republican senators who need to be "primaried" at the earliest opportunity but Jeff Flake is certainly right up there in the Top 10. If Arpaio ends up seeking another elective office he will be just as guilty as President Trump. The underlying crime? Doing what is right for the right reasons. That is a "crime" more Republicans in office should be guilty of committing. |
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Sept 7, 2017 9:48:38 GMT -6
The Lunatic Fringe Never Gives Up I'm not a fan of FaceBook for a number of reasons that I won't get into today because this is not about FaceBook, it's about lunatics. Uh uh uh, don't go there. I said that's not the topic today.
My congressman has a FaceBook page. I'm sure they all do. I haven't seen all the FaceBook pages of all the members of congress. I can think of a couple I have seen are a total waste of bits 'n' bytes. However my congressman's FB page is an active discussion forum. Sure, it has the requisite postings of pictures and self-promotional stuff that all elected officials spew out with joyful abandon, and nothing wrong with that. That's what FB is for, joyful spewing of nonsense.
But my congressman also encourages and responds to postings by the public, those who support him and those who don't, and the debates can get rather lively. This is good. Debate is good. The open arena of ideas as opposed to the closed-minded, authoritarian "safe-zones" of the modern liberal college campus.
The current FB discussion in my congressional district centers on hurricanes and the climate loons are out in force, as they are nationally, reminding one and all that if only we (read: America) will scuttle our economy, our liberty, our very ship of state, that somehow the world will end up a better place.
This is tantamount to a group of people pointing their fingers at a single member of the group and telling him over and over and over again that all the world's problem are HIS fault and if he will just hang himself, hang yourself, just hang yourself from the nearest tree everyone will be better off.
In this case we have the lunatic fringe that never gives up, that keeps up the drumbeat of telling America all we need to do is commit economic, cultural, and institutional suicide. Just kill ourselves, kill ourselves, kill ourselves and somehow the world will become a paradise of never ending rainbows and butterflies.
They love America, by the way. Don't believe it? Just ask 'em. They'll tell you. Love, love, love and all we have to do is fundamentally change into something America was never intended to be and hasn't been except through those efforts of the lunatic fringe who never give up trying to destroy America, which they love, by the way, just ask them.
We are told the United States is an intolerant hell hole of racism, sexist, whatever-ism is the flavor of the day, yet somehow we manage to tolerate those who would be our undoing as a nation. It's not the barbarians at the gates we should fear as much as the barbarians among us. Abraham Lincoln said it: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
President Grover Cleveland said, "The ship of democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those on board."
If the lunatic fringe is determined to force us to do what they think is best, then we are equally obligated to continue the struggle with equal vigor to retain our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. |
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jan 25, 2018 7:37:14 GMT -6
Time to Put Down the Rebellion Once upon a time members of a national political party in the United States refused to accept the results of a presidential election. This led to several state legislatures controlled by this party to declare they weren’t going to be bound by Federal law and they would do as they pleased. This led to those states declaring they were no longer part of the United States, which led the Federal government to declare those states to be “in rebellion” and a great war was fought between the states in the early 1860s. Flash forward to the 2010s and a national political party has refused to accept the results of a presidential election, with elected officials from that political party declaring they were not going to be bound by Federal law and leading their government jurisdictions into a state of rebellion against the Federal government. Although the names of the states has changes the national political party in both cases is the same: Democratic Party. Interesting news story showed up today from Fox News: You can read the rest for yourself but the point is we are fast approaching the time when push comes to shove, where the Federal government could possibly (and probably should) declare these states “in rebellion” and inform them they can either return to the fold or they will be returned to the fold, by force if necessary. It has been done before. In 1957 Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus declared there wouldn’t be any little black children attending Little Rock’s Central High School as long as he was in charge. President Dwight Eisenhouwer declared “au controntrare.” he president federalized the Arkansas National Guard. Then he flew the 101st airborne division into Little Rock Air force Base and, lo’ and behold, the little black children, a.k.a. “The Little Rock 9” ended up attending Central High School after all. These rebellious states don’t have to agree with federal law, but until the law is changed either legislatively or even constitutionally they are bound to obey the law… …OR ELSE! |
|
